Read here on the Eponymous Flower how Francis is treating the FFI.
I leave you to the link to get the facts.
I point out, like a commenter did, that Francis said “soon, soon!” to the elderly devout couple asking them when the situation of the FFI would come to an end. Not only there is no “soon”, but it is clear the aim is the maimimg of the organisation, leaving am amputated body full of reactionaries meant to be “re educated” to Francis’ mantra of, erm, well, mercy.
This is the man we and the Church are dealing with. A commenter asks whether Francis is the ISIS of the Church, and another assents. How could any sensible Catholic who is not blind disagree? God is punishing us with the scourge of Francis, so that we pay the price of 50 years of rebellion. He sends us this unbelievably shameless man so that even the retarded and the Pollyannas may – at the latest, when their nephews are persecuted, or raped by Muslim fanatics – understand the madness that is still going on, now raging undisturbed in the very heart of the Vatican. May God free us from this disgrace, from this shameless little apprentice Peron with no respect for the Blessed Virgin, Our Lord, or His Church. Readers ask me: what does TMAHICH stands for?
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.
The founded rumour reaches us that Francis has asked the list of the bishops ready to give a home to those willing to leave the FFI.
Reflect one second if this is not a very reasonable suspicion. Reflect whether such a behaviour would be, through and through, like him.
A Chinese reeducation camp is the nearest alternative this man has in store for devout Catholics, of course barring laicisation. The rumour may or may not be true – considering both the source and the gravity of the accusation it rather probably is – but truth or not truth, the extreme reasonableness of the suspicion makes the difference rather limited in practice. If he is not doing it, he is certainly the type who could do it. This kind of extreme mercilessness is just the kind of thing you'd expect from TMAHICH, talking all the time about “mercy” when it is convenient to flog Catholicism.
This is the time to say “enough” and to write to the SSPX – where true Catholicism lives – asking to be admitted to be able, one day, to be a Catholic priest as God commanded. May it be true that we are being punished with many bad priests for our arrogance and rebellion, I still do not think God wants to deprive the faithful of the few priests who really take things seriously.
Certainly, for many an FFI friar it will be an unpleasant experience to realise that the SSPX was right all along. Sure, the one or other may feel martyrdom is the way God has called him to.
But I cannot avoid thinking that all of them, without exception, became FFI friars because they realised they had a vocation to be sound and faithful Catholic friars and priests, uphold Catholic thinking, defend the Truth, be a shepherd to the sheep.
Up to the SSPX, then; hoping to be considered worthy of admission or affiliation.
The SSPX is where sound Catholicism is.
I am surprised of reading of so many people thinking Burke is… going to Malta.
As fas as I know, The Sovereign Military Order of Malta has left Malta at the end of the XVIII Century and its headquarters are now in Rome. It is called “Sovereign” because, like the UN and the Palestinian Authority (and the Holy See), it has sovereignty without having a territory, e.g. can give his official diplomatic immunity, etc.
Burke would (will) be demoted, not transferred.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
If there’s something I can’t stand (well I admit, there are several things I can’t stand; but this one grates me in a particular way) is selfishness willfully masked under a veil of goodness. “I think too much of my colleagues and too little of myself”, says the chap interviewed for a new job and you know he’ll never be sincere on the workplace, because decent people just haven’t the gut to lie in such a way; “I want to stay near my children”, says the father moving out with his mistress but hey, not too far away from the family he has abandoned; “I will bicycle in the Cotswolds against leukemia, do you want to sponsor me”? says the colleague who wants to have the holiday paid and look good at the same time.
Now let us be clear: everyone has his own frailties, but I think that…
View original 649 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Slowly, more and more details of the new Socialist-in-Chief begin to emerge. Not all of them flattering.
Now, I do not care whether the man has sense of humour, or charisma, or the ability to deal with the media; I am far more interested in the Weltanschauung he carries in his new political office. After all this man could be, one day, the next Prime Minister.
Turns out that “Red Ed”:
1) is an atheist
2) is not married with his “partner”
3) has one child of whom he is not registered as the father
On 1) , he has said that he has deep respect of believers, or words to that effects. Fine, but I’d like to know who, as leader of a mass party with government ambitions, would ever say anything different. I can’t imagine he would, whilst paying respect, ever do anything for Christian values in…
View original 353 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
This delicious snippet from the excellent “Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister” TV series (possibly the best TV series ever produced, certainly the favourite of Baroness Thatcher) is, as almost every word in this series, perceptive and profound whilst always managing to be suavely entertaining.
A quarter of a century after the episode, and with two of their three main actors going to their eternal (hopefully) reward, we can reflect that on the one hand the so-called church of England was already in an advanced state of decay and – more worryingly – that there is almost no sentence coming from the wise mind of Sir Humphrey (a hero of our times, and still underestimated…..) which could not – to an extent, if not always literally – be applied to the Catholic hierarchy here in Blighty.
“The word modernist is code for non-believer”
“When they stop believing in God they call themselves…
View original 130 more words
The battle lines are forming. Many whom we thought more or less our friends will betray us (bishop Tobin is the last; no doubt, many will follow). Our lines will be very, very thin compared to those of our enemies. And our enemies will try to impress you with their white, red or purple robes, and will tell you with smiling faces and soothing voices that you see, we have now decided to “be merciful”; which, of course, we never were before.
On the other side are the few who think that what the Church always thought right is right, because it's what… the Church has always believed. Their number is small, and it is going to become smaller in the foreseeable future. They are, truth be told, very polemic and very assertive. They must be, because they are the few besieged in Fort Alamo, whilst their besiegers can smile and relax, looking at their endless cohorts, and play the nice guy whilst they line the cannons against the fort.
“Look at how bitter those people are!”, the besiegers will tell to their plauding soldiers. “So bigoted, so unpleasant, so uncharitable, so… un-merciful!” So, or in similar word, they will cry, and the many public adulterers among their troops will be those who cheer the loudest.
“Compare with us, with our serene and profound theology, approved by the Holy Father himself! Aren't we the nicest bunch! Please applaud us, and remember us in your Will!”
Yes: we are few, and besieged. We hold a little fort of sanity, surrounded by the huge army of “give me an excuse” – “c”atholics, who possibly believe that as long as the numbers are with them, heaven will be too.
There's nowhere in Church teaching that salvation is earned by siding with the bigger side. The road to perdition has always been very wide, and with TMAHICH it is being enlarged and made to a superhighway as we speak. A generation that betrays Christ is a generation that Christ will discard, and not many might be those able to claim sufficient ignorance to at least make it to purgatory. May God have mercy on as many as He thinks fit among the deceived. May He punish the deceivers with all the might of His Justice.
What I see around me is an army of purpled puttanelle offering easy excuses, and cafeteria “c”atholics pretending to accept them; well knowing, all of the former as well as very many of the latter, that this is not what the Church has always taught; that it cannot be that Christ allowed the Church to deceive the faithful these two thousand years; that what they are being offered is the potion of some ecclesiastical Dulcamara, promising them the remission of sin and the obliteration of guilt against continued support.
The battle lines are forming. Fort Alamo on one side, and TMAHICH's immense and growing army on the other. But this Fort Alamo has Christ Himself defending it. It will be battered, gunned, left to hunger and thirst. But it will never be defeated.
Cheer up, then, and do not become despondent at the sight of the immense army around you. We have Christ's promise:
Bishop Tobin is the last in a long series of puttanelle who suddenly start reflecting whether the Church of Christ hasn’t, perhaps, betrayed His message and done everything wrong these 2,000 years. May he repent and obtain forgiveness when he dies; and I hope for Bishop Tobin that, if he dies unrepentant, God is more lenient than I think He will be.
Dr Peters has already written a rebuttal of the many points in which the Bishop piddles out of the WC and leaves a mess all around. I suggest you go there and read his extremely diplomatic, but very clear reply in its entirety.
What I would like to point out today is the utter and complete betrayal of Christ and His Church that is put in place every time a bishop, of all people, tries to explain to us the problems in behaving like the Church has always behaved; a behaviour made the more repulsive when this is made taking as excuse a warped reading of the Gospel. Nor can his apparent contradictions fool anyone about his subversive intent and the fact that this is the usual Modernist/V II style. “Of course we uphold Church teaching, but….”.
The Devil can quote the Gospel for his purposes, and it is not difficult to take it in isolation and let it say whatever we want to; which, by the way, is the reason for thousands of different Protestant congregations, all claiming to follow the same Scripture.
Every child used to know that; which is why they went to Catechism first and to Doctrine later, where they would be given a coherent and organic exposition of the Truth; this, in turn, would allow them to avoid the danger of reading the Gospel and raping it for their own purposes.
Not so in the new world of our purple puttanelle.
They will take a verse or two in isolation – say: Jesus’ condemnation of the extremely rigid formalism of Jewish Sabbath observance; clearly reflected in the understanding of Sunday in all Catholic Countries – and wonder whether, in light of his extraordinary discovery, rules should now make any sense at all. Perhaps should we, then, decide that public adulterers could receive communion? Look, the Jews were wrong! It follows that the Church is wrong too, right?
There is only one word for the Bishop’s behaviour: prostitution. And no, I do not care if there are far worse bishops that Tobin around. Battle lines are been formed here, and no bishop can claim to remain neutral. On the side of Christ, or on the side of Satan. Bishop Tobin has chosen Satan’s, and the fact that he did abundantly shows the extent of the problem.
Ask yourself whether the bishop would have expressed himself in such terms during Benedict’s pontificate, and you will see very clearly the poison in his soul.
This, my friends, is another one looking for Brownie points by TMAHICH.
How do you lose your post? If you are Cardinal Burke, perhaps you do (and you did) it just with this interview.
The interview is, in my eyes, significant for many aspects; including the ambiguity of the V II mentality, a defect from which Cardinal Burke is not exempt.
Let us see more in detail the important parts:
1. We make judgments all day concerning what is right and what is wrong.
Very fine. Best part of the interview. A hammer blow on the genitals of “who am I to judge?”. Well said, Your Grace! For the record, I think you would have lost your post anyway, so it is better to go after some straight talk after all…
2. We can’t say that a particular person is in mortal sin. He might not be conscious etc…
Well, we can’t judge the interior forum; but we have no right to be blind and stupid, either. It’s not that the Pope does not know what fornication is. It’s not that he does not know the concept of complicity in another’s sin. It’s not that a sodomite does not know the biblical episode, and what Christianity says God has in store for him unless he repents. As we remind ourselves of the rules, we keep our brains switched on.
Curiously, I never hear the Cardinal, or anyone else, applying this very merciful reasoning to Hitler.
“Oh, but he knew! He knew! ‘ course he knew!”
He knew, uh? What about Elton John? Is he under an evil spell?
3. He (Burke) is not intolerant of people with same-sex attraction; but hey, they do endanger their soul.
Can we stop with this PC talk of “same-sex” attraction? Is incest called “same-family attraction?” Is bestiality called “family pet attraction?” Is pedophilia called “child-attraction”? (yes, I know what it means in Greek; but the first word has a negative connotation the second one waters down). It’s called homosexuality, and the act is called sodomy.
It never ceases to amaze me that old bibles have words like “sodomite”, “whore”, “harlot”, and we think we must say “same-sex attraction”. Screw that. Call perverts with their name. It will do them a lot of good. It might, actually, lead them – by God’s grace – to save their souls.
The Cardinal does express the concept here, but he is too cautious. He walks on eggs. He is too V II.
4. The lesbian daughter of the old harpie isn’t evil; merely what she does is.
As the Gipper would say, “here you go again!”.
“Stupid is as stupid does”, says (if memory serves) Forrest Gump’s mother, and the entire world embraces the tautological truth of it. Strangely, it seems not to apply in case of evil acts. Evil acts are not committed by evil people. Who are we (cough) to judge?
One gases 300,000 people, or sends them to millions in gas chambers, or lets them die in horrible Gulags. How can I know he is evil, then? I am not in his brains, right? Repeat with me: “internal forum”.
“Oh, but in Saddam’s case it is obvious!”
Fine. Saddam’s evil is obvious, and the unnatural evil of sexual perversion, celebrated in public for all the world to see, isn’t? Can any of these people say they do not know perfectly well what Christian teaching on the matter is? On the contrary: isn’t it so, that they are so angry and so militant exactly because they know it? What could be more obvious, than their knowledge of Christ’s rules, and their rebellion to them?
Truly: must Satan spit directly in our face before we recognise his work, and his minions?
By the by, I have always been told that in what gravely goes against natural law no one can hide behind ignorance, because one’s God-given conscience will always rebel to it, and an insisted, substantial, evil effort will be required to become deaf to its voice. Which is why no one can massacre a village, of screw a dog, or his sister, or his school pal and then say “I’m fine, because I wasn’t told it was wrong”.
This is so darn obvious, I wouldn’t have to even write it. But hey, we live in the “age of mercy”, where TMAHICH is in power, and the official reading is that the Blessed Virgin might have thought “Lies! I have been deceived!” under the cross.
Let us say it once again: where I come from there was this strange expectation that the brains are kept switched on. This idea that everyone is always innocent even when he screams to the world day and night that he isn’t just wasn’t there.
Evil is who evil does. Forrest Gump gets it. Let’s try to do the same.
We should, I think, go back to the basics of sound thinking. We do not know whether anyone, even Elton John or Stephen Fry, will go to hell; and we wish them from the heart that they may, by the grace of God, avoid that terrible destiny, as we hope the same for ourselves.
But we can’t just pretend to be such fools that we can’t see the open rebellion to Our Lord even when openly advertised and boasted of. Particularly so, when this rebellion happens in matters of natural law, which God has written indelebly in everyone of us.
Yes, we prudently consider that we do not know the people’s internal forum, whenever there is room for reasonable doubt. But we don’t say the same of Hitler and Stalin, because common sense tells us that when one goes around screaming to the world that he is the enemy of Christ, well he damn well is. If this is true for Pol Pot and Lenin, then it must be true for all those perverts who give scandal of their perversion, in open defiance to God’s laws.
All in all, then, a typical Burke. Laudably orthodox and brave in the intent, but in the end weak in the delivery, and with the usual, unsavoury V II undertones.
Still, I can’t avoid thinking TMAHICH read the interview and the part about the judging, and… judged Burke worthy of swift punishment.
There is much surprise in the blogosphere about the rumours that want Cardinal Burke on its way to a comfortable, but obvious semi-retirement at the head of the Knights of Malta. I must say I am not in the least.
The Cardinal will, I am sure, enjoy the view from the Aventino (you know that hole from which you can see the dome of St. Peter surrounded by an arch made of plants? Well, that’s them; among other things…). Whilst so doing, he will probably reflect that this was the only way it could end seen that he is not a boot-licker like many others – in red, in purple and in black – around him. It had to end that way, because Burke is – if even in the more moderate V I I version – a thorn in the side of NuChurch. Too obsessed with abortion, too attached to Tradition, too much of a Rosary-counter, Burke was clearly a fish out of the water in a world dominated by ecclesiastical prostitutes.
I can only hope his successor will not be an open subversive; which, by the wind that is blowing, is somewhere between a hope and a dream.
In a way, Burke unavoidable departure might give him more freedom of movement. As a member of Francis’ team of “super ministers”, he might have refrained from stronger criticism; as a man now outside of the big game, he could feel free to express himself more freely and become, one day, the focal point of what they call “loyal opposition” and I call merely sanity, and refusal to prostitute oneself to the new times.
It’s a beautiful piece of real estate, that plot on the Aventino. The view is astonishing, and certainly better than from the near Giardino degli Aranci, a favourite of Romans and tourists alike.
It’s a good place to reflect, in one of the wonderful October mornings Rome never fails to give, about the price of loyalty to Christ.
Cardinal Burke is probably not a saint, and clearly he is not the man to tell all the truth, hard and straight, at the cost of real persecution. Yours truly can, in conscience, not tell you that he is sure he would behave differently and would have the strength to openly invite persecution, loss of privilege, and a poor, lost, dreary, uncomfortable parish somewhere in Alaska, or Alabama. But as Cardinals go, Burke is at the moment among the very best; and is, therefore, put aside in favour of the young generation of willing careerist puttanelle; those who are the first to do TMAHICH’s will today, and will be the first to denounce the climate of leftist intimidation tomorrow.
The good ones will be removed one by one and moved where they have less, or no, influence; as already seen in the case of Cardinal Piacenza and – though I am bitterly disappointed in the man – Bagnasco.
Enjoy the October mornings, Your Grace. You may not be a martyr, but you have deserved them.
I hear from various sides the reassuring calls of cardinals, bishops, priests and simple bloggers telling us that doctrine cannot change, and therefore we have nothing to fear from the October Synod.
I would not be so sure of that. I think we have much to fear.
True, doctrine can't change, because Truth cannot. Even if Francis himself would declare from the balcony in St Peter that fornication is not a sin, or that two and two is five, truth would not change in the least.
But this is not the way TMAHICH operates. He is not interested in open conflict with the strong. He does not touch the SSPX, much less 2,000 years of official Church pronouncements. What he does is to sabotage Catholicism in the praxis, in the everyday living of the Church; safe in the knowledge that 95% of Western Catholics don't know much of doctrine, but read the newspapers or receive the echo of the headlines.
Francis will not openly defy doctrine. There is more than one way to skin a cat. He will sabotage, mock, undermine, belittle, and vilify it. He will do so by creating a climate, an environment of change openly practiced but not officially proclaimed.
Take the Argentinian concubine to whom the Unholy Father would have said she can go to communion.
Has Francis officially proclaimed concubinage is no obstacle to receiving? Of course not. Has he reaffirmed Catholic teaching? No, he did not do it either. Has he at least denied he said such words to the woman? No, he hasn't. Has he affirmed he did? No, not at all.
Result? The whole world knows, senses, feels Francis is the chap to say such things. They clearly perceive he would like to say such things; and whether his tongue has slipped in a phone call or not, they know he would speak in this way for all the world to see, if he only could.
This is what everyone, bar the retarded and the inveterate Pollyannas, understands. The climate has been created. The lío is going on full steam. Dissenters, concubines, perverts know that Francis is on their side against Church teaching.
The Synod can begin.
At this synod, not much will be necessary to subvert the praxis, and it will most certainly not be necessary to attack the rules to do so. De jure, the rules will be very solemnly affirmed, for the joy of the Pollyannas happily licking their lollipop and writing on various blogs how gracious it was of Francis to give it to them. De facto, just a few carefully chosen words in official documents, saying but also not saying that the priest can, in case, when the circumstances allow, having regard for the particular situation, after weighing all the pros and cons, deal with the situation with mercy, will be enough. Actually, I now suspect that just the mentioning of this by Francis most devilishly and subversively used word, mercy, once will be enough to cause a real revolutionary outburst in the church in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, and elsewhere.
One phrase, carefully worded, and passed to the news outlets as the unofficial “key to the synod”, and “reflecting the mind of this merciful Pope”. This is all that is needed.
The world will exult, the concubines will feel vindicated, the Church will be vilified, perverts of all sorts will say now it's their turn, sacrilege will spread everywhere in the West not as isolated abuse, but as the new “alternative praxis of mercy”.
The Pollyanna will, very happily, lick at their lollipop.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History is on record with saying that the Church is not a glorified NGO.
Unsurprisingly by such a circus tool, a glorified NGO seems to be exactly the vision he has of the Church: an organisation in which everything – from his homilies and off-the-cuff blatherings to his foreign travels to his verbous documents and interviews – is meant to trumpet the Church as the Force For Social Advancement, whilst the concept of salvation is dismissed as automatic achievement and, therefore, largely irrelevant as is repentance, conversion, & Co.
This NGO mania is so advanced, that the Church administration should now be reorganised to better serve the purpose. One is truly reminded of those Multinationals' restructuring at the core of which, they assure us, is the desire to be nearer the wishes and thinking – and purses – of the customer.
A “congregation for the Laity” should now be created. We already have, to my knowledge, a pontifical council with that name, but this here is clearly a promotion. Actually, I thought the Church Herself, and her organisation of bishops and priests and deacons, exists for the laity, so that the Congregation is a bit as if the British Government created a “ministry for the government”; but such are the times we live in.
This congregation would occupy itself with poverty, peace, justice and all the issues that sound so well in the ear of the world. It will be, so to speak, the spearhead of Pope Robin Hood. It will fill the void until now existing between papal rhetoric and papal administration.
I have no doubt the head of this new dicastery has been already selected by the Pope; and if he will not be one so utterly, as the Italians say, impresentabile as Maradiaga, it will probably be a slightly more presentable version of that unworthy prelate.
This will be a powerful man; at the centre of the attention, and rather well positioned to take Francis' place when he dies or resigns.
Say hello to “Glorified NGO”, then. In a world in which salvation is a given and giving public scandal is worthy of a Papal pat on the back, the only issues that count will be the exclusively worldly ones.
Let me stress it once again: this is The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church Hystory. He has, in fact, deserved an acronym just for him: TMAHICH.
And it came to pass yours truly was informed – by looking at a poster – of the existence of “memorial gardens”.
I have looked in some search engine what it is, and it soon became clear enough: a memorial garden is a place where people go to remember their loved ones who have left this vale of tears. With some space for them, perhaps a plaque on it, perhaps some ashes. What is, then, the difference with a Cemetery?
I can only imagine one difference: a memorial garden is something absolutely a-religious. In short, something for atheists.
A cemetery, you see, is full of crosses. One is constantly reminded of the great hope of a better life awaiting, one day, those who have departed this world. How annoying must it be to the mind of the atheist, who hates to be reminded that there is a judgment, and one without appeal!
Let him, therefore, do something different, and travel on a Saturday morning – Sunday is, clearly, meant for grocery shopping – in a pleasant garden, where his beloved former partner or parent or relative will be thought of in a soothing, pleasant, utterly relaxing environment. Thus pleasing first, second and last the one who does the thinking.
These atheists are, I am told, exactly those who consider Christians people who believe in fairy tales.
A believer can walk in a cemetery, look at the immensity of the sky above him, at the organised beauty of life unfolding under his eyes, and rationally understand the necessity of the existence of God. What he sees above, and what he knows of the above, is what makes sense of the tombs and monuments around him. A cemetery is not the parody of anything else. It is the real thing, and it truly makes sense.
The atheist is, on the other hand, supposed to be a rational man. Still, not only he refuses to see what every perceptive child understands – that such a huge and hugely organised universe must have a Great Chief In Charge – but he lacks the guts to look at the consequences of his conviction against the faith. He needs some balm for the coldness around him: therefore, he builds for himself a senseless parody of a cemetery, deprived of any logic but his own self delusion.
Look, atheist friend. You believe that your parents are gone. Either they were burned in an oven like they do with waste, or they were put under the earth for worms to go to work at them. In both cases, what they have become is, pretty much, fertiliser. And yes, that's that, folks.
What sense does it make, then, to have a “memorial garden?”. Wouldn't any old nice park do the same? And what use is this revelling on the atrocious reality of the atheist? Fertiliser them, and fertiliser him, at the end of a life that makes no sense at all and is the very epitome of mad, or rather blind, casual injustice. Feelings of filial or parental love which, as the atheist must recognise, are but evolutionary mechanisms the human species, as every other halfway complex animal, evolved to protect itself from an hostile environment. Feeling of sadness for their departure which, as the atheist must recognise, are also but the way The Great Mad Life Machine, which actually – he must recognise it – doesn't even exist, forces him to love others and spend money on them; money which could, otherwise, be spent on gambling, drinking and whoring without the shadow of even an uncomfortable moment.
“This is my business”, says the atheist. “If I enjoy walking around in a memorial garden, what's it to you?”
It is a lot to me, dear peripatetic atheist. It shows that you, who claim the command of logical thinking, are but an emotional child, lost in a big world you cannot even begin to understand, and terrified of it; a world you cannot bear without surrounding yourself with exactly the soothing feelings and pleasant lies of which you say Christians and other believers are the willing, gullible victims. You are looking for pleasant feelings, because you are afraid of the unpleasant truth: that you will die and end up in an oven, or as worm food, and nothing of what you have said or done, alone or in company, for or against Christianity, good or bad, useful or useless, has, or ever could have, any meaning at all. Any meaning, I mean, that does not come from the fantasies of a child, fancying he loves a world which will devour him without a shred of an emotion.
Your mother is ashes now. So is everyone you knew before you discovered you wanted to be the Great Decider yourself, answerable to none but you. And all this does not make any sense, there is no glory or beauty in any of it. Your mother loved and nurtured you out of the pure instinct of making litter until she died, like every other animal. Your love for her is due to the same mechanisms. No one is ever good or right, or even heroic and selfless. Nature has made it all. All your hopes and aspirations, your passions and loves, your oh so humanitarian desires show only one thing: you are duped; you are the slave of your own DNA, used by it for the sake of its own perpetuation as you get discarded and thrown in the compost. This is all you will ever be good for.
Therefore, my dear atheist, abandon this emotional and childish nonsense of the “memorial garden”. It is, in your perspective, as senseless as everything else. Reflect, rather, on your own utter nothingness: an absurd joke of coincidence living among other jokes of coincidence, and living a short existence towards the pure nothing as they search some small comfort, and try to reproduce for reasons they actually can't fathom (which is why they, in fact, contracept massively).
It is better for you to recognise the brutal reality that dominates your thinking: you are the slave of your DNA until the day you die.
At which point, you will be only useful as fertiliser.
It's Tuesday, and the news aggregators report the tsunami of headlines concerning the Unholy Father's latest scandal.
Francis is “inclusive”; he signals a “shift”; he indicates sex outside of marriage is, even, “not a sin”. Things like that. A lot of them.
As always, the planet is now divided in two. The first group are the Pollyannas and the stupid (often the same people) believing that Francis is being “merciful”, without explaining to us why it seems not that the concubines have repented of their real sins, but rather that the Church has repented of her alleged ones. The second are all other, those with a functioning brain and the will to use it, who see what is all too plain and executed completely under the sun: the pickaxing of Catholic teaching in favour of a new sentimental, shallow, and very stupid imitation Christianity in which poverty and social justice are the only real problems, and sin is the preserve of mafia bosses and rosary-counting faithful.
No one can say with a straight face that this umpteenth tsunami of headlines is not exactly what Francis wanted. It is too obvious, and it has happened too many times, to allow any such behaviour. This is a Pope clearly acting with malice aforethought, perfectly aware of what headlines each and every of his antics will generate.
Some people seem to think if they blind themselves and refuse to see the very obvious evidence, this will be counted for them – or at least not against them – when they die.
They are sorely mistaken, because they are being his accomplices and enablers.
I know, I know… he has not followed all steps.
But the sheer stupidity and shallowness of the arguments, of the entire frame of mind of the man, is impressive.
Plus, we do not have the transcript, so he might have followed my own suggestions for priests about “how to be like him” more closely.
in case you are surprised, don’t: if there is one Pope able to read what a crappy priest he is and to say “this is good! I need to do more of this!”, this is him.